September 12, 2012

Take a look at Drudge right now. There is some terrible news, damaging to Obama's reelection effort, but Drudge has arranged everything, it seems, for the maximum damaging effect. I'll just extract that top left corner...

... but there's much much more. The main headline is about the attack on the embassy in Libya. Below that, in the left column, there's "OBAMA CONVENTION BOUNCE GONE: O 46% R 45%... DEVELOPING..." and then a picture of Netanyahu, in sharp focus, staring down a blurry, lip-pursing Obama, and this series of teasers:

'WAIT FOR WHAT? WAIT UNTIL WHEN?'
USA and Israel in open feud...
White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama...
'Schedule Full'...Announces 'Letterman' Appearance...

Also in that column, under a picture of teachers on strike in Chicago, is Bill Clinton in front of 3 American flags. Clinton was — in Drudge-world — urging Floridians "to honor 9/11 — by voting." The American flag theme is continued in the middle column, with a picture of protesters in Cairo ripping down the American flag. Above that pic is a photo of a stern Hillary Clinton. Under it is a photo, presumably from a protest somewhere in Africa, of a burning sheet printed with Obama's smiling face.

That's the way the day looks, for the millions of people who check Drudge for that purpose. It's an important day for the Obama campaign. We shall see how well it's handled. Some people might say the best way to handle it is not to think about the campaign at all but to knuckle down and do the work of President the way it should be done, as if there were no campaign at all. But who can imagine that... I mean other than a politico who thinks that giving that impression would be best for the campaign.

Drudge has his eyes wide open to see what the 4 Obama years has done to America's role as a world power. We have gone from first to weakest dweeb on the block whose only role still being exercised is timing of the "unexpected" destruction of Israel and murder of its entire population by our new best friends from Mecca.

And since middle eastern Muslims only respect POWER and fervently despise mercy and kindness, we had better withdraw back to the continental USA and pray the Muslims forget about us as Obama has planned to have happen.

Drudge is a pure hack for the Republican party. The only people influenced by his page are fools.It is telling that he fails to identify the Sam﻿ Bacile as the person who initiated this particular incident, someone who is perfectly happy to take advantage of all the financial opportunities that the US offers without any desire to take on the responsibilities of citizenship.

It is telling that he fails to identify the Sam﻿ Bacile as the person who initiated this particular incident, someone who is perfectly happy to take advantage of all the financial opportunities that the US offers without any desire to take on the responsibilities of citizenship.

I watched GMA this morning during the first hour. You wouldn't think it was that big of a deal that our Ambassador was killed along with 3 other Americans. They were quite solemn for the 20 seconds they spent on the story during each 30 minute segment, I'll give them that.

While we are on the subject of traitors, what about Romney's response? He tries to gain political advantage from the death of an American diplomat. Romney is a disgrace.

The Obama administration has done exactly the right thing in Libya, they supported the right side, there was an election that installed a secular government who's job is very difficult. This is the pointy end of the spear in defeating radical Islam. Obama understands this. Maybe idiot's like Drudge, Romney and this prick Bacile could learn a lesson.

There are numerous pictures of the Ambassador's body being paraded through the streets in Benghazi. Disgraceful, but totally understandable in these days of propaganda wars (these are the same wonderful people who made a video of Qaddafi being sodomized before they shot him (in another religiously motivated attempt to prevent him from going to paradise).)

Anyone not believe these attacks were not planned to coincide with the 9-11 anniversary? The Salafis have our number on that one. Just showing they are still there - in Egypt and Libya.

How about a nice drone attack on all Salafi headquarters and villages in Libya? Or maybe we just can continue to condemn the Coptic filmmaker in the US for "inciting" these poor, poor people.

(Amazing too that the film has been on the web for a few weeks - and the reaction is so .... coordinated. Why, it might remind one of the Danish Cartoon incident if you thought about it.)

So it appears that Barry's foreign policy success is about equal to his domestic economic success. Which is to say totally unsuccessful. In fact, a total clusterfuck. Only instead of being paid for in loss of jobs it's loss of lives.

And, yeah, it's political, but I'm thinking Barry and Joe's plan to emphasis foreign policy over economy in the debates is toast now.

It is telling that he fails to identify the Sam Bacile as the person who initiated this particular incident, someone who is perfectly happy to take advantage of all the financial opportunities that the US offers without any desire to take on the responsibilities of citizenship.

Some people might say the best way to handle it is not to think about the campaign at all but to knuckle down and do the work of President the way it should be done, as if there were no campaign at all. But who can imagine that... I mean other than a politico who thinks that giving that impression would be best for the campaign.

That would actually require Obama to "do the work of President" which is something he just doesn't do very often. He's much more comfortable doing another fundraiser, giving a speech or playing golf.

Once again, Obama proves himself as the emperor with no clothes. Of course, most of the Press will bury the story like the New York Times did. "All the News That Fits Our Views."

Is one Drudge the equal of the NYT, ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, Wapo, NPR, PBS, MSNBC, Bloomberg News,AP, and all the local newspapers and local TV stations? Unfortnately,the answer is not yet but one day he will be.

EMD said...I would not be prepared to refer to them as a secular government when they've installed Islam as a state religion.

The British government has christianity as its state religion and no one feel uncomfortable referring to them as a bunch of secularists.

The government in Libya is about as good as could be achieved in the current historical circumstances. Its verbal response to these killings has been appropriate. Let's hope that this incident doesn't turn into a partisan feud, because this is a success, despite what Romney and Drudge may say. It may all go south at some point in the future but Libya is a real beach head in the fight against radical Islam and for partisan politics to intrude on this process, which is critical to US security, is a disgrace.

Surfed said... B-2's in Cairo at rooftop level dumping kerosene into the afterburner. But that's just me.

B-2s don't have afterburners (bad for IR stealth). The B-1B is another story. Back in 1995, I was close to the flightline at Oshkosh when a B-1 departed. It held its brakes, went to full afterburner and held it for a few seconds before rolling. We're talking about 120,000 pounds of supersonic thrust (shock diamonds were visible) making it the loudest thing I ever heard.

Maybe the deaths of Americans can breath some much needed life into the Romney campaign.

Don't you mean the Axelrod campaign?

With the "bounce" having vaporized, maybe this will be their next distraction since the talking point this morning seems to be the Romster is "playing politics" by saying, "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks".

Gee, I wonder how garage and AnUnreasonableTroll would sound if the Romney Administration said something so squishy.

"It is telling that he fails to identify the Sam﻿ Bacile as the person who initiated this particular incident"

Fascist nonsense, exactly what Romney rightfully condemned. Sam Bacile is just a guy who made a stupid video. He didn't riot. He didn't kill anyone. He didn't raid any embassies. The Egyptians and the Libyans did that. They initiated this incident all by themselves.

Why do people like you act as though the Middle East is populated entirely by violently demented children?

This is all on Obama. He made the unconstitutional move of not getting Congress's permission to act in Libya. This isn't a bipartisan failure or even the failure of two branches of government. This is Obama's.

"He tries to gain political advantage from the death of an American diplomat. Romney is a disgrace."

Oh, ok. Dissent is unpatriotic again. It's really hard to keep up.

Did you even read the initial US Embassy statement, blaming an American for "abusing" free speech? I don't care who said that or what prompted them to say it. It's cowardly and dishonorable pandering of the worst kind.

Obama has taken exactly the right approach towards the middle east. It is a tar pit that he is doing his level best to extract the US from.

There are provocateurs on both sides. To respond to these provocateurs is stupid and not in the best interests of the country. For commenters here it seems that it is easy to see how stupid it is for Libyan's to respond to Bacile's provocation but much more difficult to see how stupid it is to respond to the Libyan's provocation.

The only national security reason for the US to be involved in the middle east is oil and with increasing national energy independence that reason is rapidly declining. An overly nationalist response to these incidents by the president is not in the long term best interests of the country. Hopefully Romney is now reconsidering his initial statements or he has essentially disqualified himself from the Presidency.

Colonel Angus: I think you and tend to agree on many issues, but let me take issue on your phrase "a few underlings." They were United States Marines. I know you meant them no disrepect.

And none was intended. I was attempting to point out the ridiculousness of the commenter's opinion that Libya is as good as to be expected and I agree my attempt at sarcasm didn't come off. I regret the negative implication.

Obama has taken exactly the right approach towards the middle east. It is a tar pit that he is doing his level best to extract the US from.

Could you please reconcile the above statement with Obama inserting itself in Libya's civil war?

There are provocateurs on both sides.

Actually there was an individual exercising his right to free speech and the other side responded with murder and mayhem. If your position is that we should not poke a hornets nest for fear of being stung then by all means just say so. Just be willing to accept the implication that Muslims are mindless insects that act on primal impulse.

The late ambassador taught English for the Peace Corps in Mauritania from '83 to '85. He was fluent in both French and Arabic. His YouTube site's message indicates that in less than six months as ambassador 1,700 Libyans received Fulbright Fellowships through his office, more than any other one country in the world. His death will serve as a powerful incentive for those students to make the most of the opportunity afforded by his sacrifice. Sometimes the world exacts a terrible toll from those fully and firmly committed to making the world a better place.

Maybe it's not Drudge making it a bad day for Obama. Bad day, bad year, bad term, just bad. I wish it was actually only bad for him, but he seems to get a pass from 1/2 the country. The soft racism of low expectations.

"For commenters here it seems that it is easy to see how stupid it is for Libyan's to respond to Bacile's provocation but much more difficult to see how stupid it is to respond to the Libyan's provocation."

Two kinds of provocation:- Making a low-budget movie - Attacking a US embassy, murdering and pillaging

You're right. Now that I think about it, they're exactly the same.

When you don't take the security of your overseas embassies seriously, very bad things happen, and they'll continue to happen.

Ironclad - How about a nice drone attack on all Salafi headquarters and villages in Libya? Or maybe we just can continue to condemn the Coptic filmmaker in the US for "inciting" these poor, poor people.

I have said the movie is a smokescreen -- 9/11 anniversary was the real reason for the simultaneous Islamoid attacks on two embassies.

But is is very curious how the US media quickly orchestrated the "facts" to state the people behind the offending movie are Coptic Egyptians and intolerant Christian fundies....

When a quick look reveals that contrary to the Christian-bashing initial media reports - it turns out that Bacile is an Israeli real estate speculator now in SoCal holding joint citizenship, and when his film initially came out he told the Wall Street Journal it was meant to denigrate Islam for what they did to Jews. And his donors were around 100 Jews that rounded up 5 million.

How did the media santitize "Jew" out when they started slamming the movie..and how did liberals, progressive Jews, and gay activists script "rogue Christian bigots" in as the culprits???

In a sense, this doctoring is as bad as NBC editing George Zimmerman tapes to appear racist. The goal was to cast Egyptian and US CHristians as the root cause of the embassy attacks..to advance the US media Chrisian - Bashing "Narrative". Bastards were against the Sacrament of Gay Marriage...so waste no opportunity to pin bad things on Christians...

Allie--a few thougts. In general Embassy security is left to local authorities "outside the wall." There are not enough Marines inside the wall to withstand a full blown assault. I mourn the loss of the ambassador the Marines who died. That said, the State Department runs its own intelligence service (INR--Intelligence and Research) and I would have hoped they would have picked up on the danger signals. Because Intelligence service remain largely fragmented, I can understand how bureaucracy contributed to this tragedy. Which is why I said I would like to see the cables from DOS to embassies given the date of 9/11. I mourn the loss of the Ambassador and the Marines and the fourth dead American. Condolences, again, to the slain Americans and their families.

LOLOLOLOL Rantburg pulled this one out of the vault, Sully wrote this 12/07:

The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West's advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

Consider this hypothetical. It's November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man--Barack Hussein Obama--is the new face of America. In one simple image, America's soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama's face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

Drudge is a pure hack for the Republican party. The only people influenced by his page are fools.It is telling that he fails to identify the Sam﻿ Bacile as the person who initiated this particular incident, someone who is perfectly happy to take advantage of all the financial opportunities that the US offers without any desire to take on the responsibilities of citizenship.

So, he MADE them storm embassies and kill diplomats?

Do short skirts MAKE men rape women too?

Are they not able to handle being upset without murdering?

While we are on the subject of traitors, what about Romney's response? He tries to gain political advantage from the death of an American diplomat.

He states the US supports free speech and apologizing for that is terrible. Yes, damn Romney.

The Obama administration has done exactly the right thing in Libya, they supported the right side, there was an election that installed a secular government who's job is very difficult

Funny, Israel has few problems stopping people from storming embassies and slaughtering ambassadors. Why do the participants in the "Arab Spring" having such difficulty pulling off, you know, a really basic requirement of a functional government?

I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere...

I think his point is "Free speech for me, but not for thee"

The government in Libya is about as good as could be achieved in the current historical circumstances. Its verbal response to these killings has been appropriate. Let's hope that this incident doesn't turn into a partisan feud, because this is a success, despite what Romney and Drudge may say. It may all go south at some point in the future but Libya is a real beach head in the fight against radical Islam and for partisan politics to intrude on this process, which is critical to US security, is a disgrace.

A "success"? Embassies being stormed an ambassador strangled and paraded down the street is success? What the hell constitutues failure?

But, hey, at least bin Laden is dead, right? Sure, the ME is going to Hell in a handbasket --- but WE KILLED OBL!! NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!!!

Sam Bacile is just a guy who made a factually accurate video

FIFY. His video, while inflammatory, wasn't incorrect.

Obama has taken exactly the right approach towards the middle east. It is a tar pit that he is doing his level best to extract the US from.

...by involving us in Libya against Congressional wishes and helping overthrow Mubarak to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt.

Maybe we need somebody who knows what they're doing to lead for a while.

There are provocateurs on both sides.

Sure, he raped her --- but did you see how she was dressed? She PROVOKED him!

To respond to these provocateurs is stupid and not in the best interests of the country. For commenters here it seems that it is easy to see how stupid it is for Libyan's to respond to Bacile's provocation but much more difficult to see how stupid it is to respond to the Libyan's provocation.

Until they can guarantee security, we should pull all staff and break all ties. They INVADED AMERICAN TERRITORY. You don't allow that to happen, no matter what.

The only national security reason for the US to be involved in the middle east is oil and with increasing national energy independence that reason is rapidly declining.

Provided one ignores Obama's restriction of drilling on all but private lands. He's had courts slap him down about his drilling moratorium in the Gulf.

Hopefully Romney is now reconsidering his initial statements or he has essentially disqualified himself from the Presidency.

Obama's decision to talk to Letterman but ignore Netanyahu is disqualifying for him. You don't seem to care.

@Areasonableman,Your statement would be accurate if you changed it to:It is telling that he fails to identify President Barack Obama as the person who initiated this particular incident, someone who is perfectly happy to take advantage of all the State Dinners and social opportunities that the Nobel Peace Prize and Office of the Presidency offer without any desire to take on the responsibilities of being the President.

MayBee said...A reasonable man- Romneys response was and continues to be that the US values freedom of speech and we don't apologise for that in response to irrational violence.

Are you seriously arguing that Bacile was not acting as a provacateur to advance the national interests of his own country? How f**king naive are you?

There's hundreds of these people out there and every now and then one of them scores a hit. We should ignore these pricks and focus on advancing our national interests which are to get the f**k out of the middle east and repair an economy that managed to outsource its manufacturing base to our biggest geopolitical rival.

RogerJ,, My daughter just got back to Afghanistan from her two week R&R. I always get a terrible sinking feeling when things heat up in the region, knowing she's in that part of the world, although not close to Libya and Egypt, surrounded by people who hate Americans.

When the Army soldiers accidentally burned Korans a while back in Afghanistan, there were attacks and demonstrations by Afghans in retaliation. The attacks by those dressed as Afghan Army or police on our troops has increased tremendously this past year. Worried our troops will be sitting ducks now that we are drawing down, yet I feel we've been there too long already.

Security most definitely needs to be increased anywhere there are Americans in that part of the world, or we need to get out and leave them to their own devices.

I do think that the report that Obama skips so many of his briefings coming out days before an ambassador was killed... just imagine if he were a Republican. Hell, people STILL try and pretend Bush ignored warning signs that allowed 9/11 to happen.

garage, et al,It is the President's job to be aware of threats like this and do all that is reasonable to stop attacks like what happened in Egypt and Libya.

It is not possible to prevent all such attacks, no.

But when they do happen, you should treat it like the deliberate attack on the US that it is. And before they happen, you should be at least listening to the PDB every day so that you can lead on issues of national security.

If you decry criticism of Obama as "political", then that means you are unserious about national security, and seeking for Democrats to win the Presidential election for crass political advantage.

You should be ashamed of yourselves for your immaturity and partisanship.

My daughter just got back to Afghanistan from her two week R&R. I always get a terrible sinking feeling when things heat up in the region, knowing she's in that part of the world, although not close to Libya and Egypt, surrounded by people who hate Americans.

Does it make you feel like your daughter is more safe or less safe that the President often skips briefings about the security situation there so he can spend more time campaigning for re-election?

There is no argument that he ignored warning signs. Whether these warninges were insufficiently clear or whether the Bush administration had what they believed to other more pressing priorities can be argued, but there is no argument that they were warned, repeatedly.

It is remarkable that the press gave Bush such a free pass on this issue. If he had been a Democrat I doubt he would have gotten off so easily.

"It is remarkable that the press gave Bush such a free pass on this issue."

-- If by "free pass" you mean "brought it up again yesterday to throw more accusations," you're right. Look, try and be up to date on current events before commenting to prevent looking either like an uninformed person or an idiot.

Allie--I respect your daughter's service and share her's and your concerns about her safety. Now heres the bad news: we dont have enough forces to provide adequate sercurity. They are taxed beyond belief and three to four tours in A-stan wear on soldiers. Hell-I only did two tours in Viet Nam and I was exhausted. But I do recall that Mr Obama said that A-Stan was the "right war." And all he has done is not make it happen and place your daughter at considerable risk.

Apologize for personalizing your daughter's situation, but that is the sad truth.

The government in Libya is about as good as could be achieved in the current historical circumstances.

Ye-es, historical circumstances we (following Europe's lead) did a fair amount to create. There is a certain hoist-by-petard quality to our diplomatic outposts being overrun by a horde in a territory which we deliberately acted to destabilise. That said, attacking the embassy of a foreign power is absolutely beyond the pale for any civilized people. They are fortunate that we do not respond to the murder of our ambassadors in the Mongol fashion.

We ought to immediately cease accepting any immigration or travel whatsoever from Egypt of Libya. The government of Egypt has not apologised promptly, so we should immediately cut off all foreign aid to Egypt (over a billion dollars a year, I think). The government of Libya has apologised, so if they are receiving any aid, we should continue it, but we should not permit any Libyans to enter the United States.

That said, attacking the embassy of a foreign power is absolutely beyond the pale for any civilized people.

I'm curious as to where Libyan security was. I have difficulty imagining this being pulled off in the US or any Western nation before the host country's military or para-military descended on the embassy.

Here they managed to storm the embassy, kill the ambassador several Marines and proceed to parade his corpse down the street.

Egypt used to be an incredibly fertile territory, the breadbasket of the Roman Empire. If they can't figure out how to grow their own food, they clearly have a very fundamental problem. It's not like they're a population holed up on a rock somewhere where there's no fertile land.

I never was entirely sure -why- we stepped in to Libya, Obama never really made a case. I think it was to stop the slaughter of innocents, something I can get behind. But he never really made the pitch.

---

As for when is dissent acceptable: When it is done in a respectful manner (like Romney did), it strengthens our nation by showing that you can disagree without fighting about it. Sadly, the reasonable people on the left are routinely drowned out -- see all the Bush assassination porn and Palin rape/sexual assault tirades.

I'm curious as to where Libyan security was. I have difficulty imagining this being pulled off in the US or any Western nation before the host country's military or para-military descended on the embassy.

Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam's Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building - deemed safer - after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.

I never was entirely sure -why- we stepped in to Libya, Obama never really made a case. I think it was to stop the slaughter of innocents, something I can get behind. But he never really made the pitch.

---

As for when is dissent acceptable: When it is done in a respectful manner (like Romney did), it strengthens our nation by showing that you can disagree without fighting about it. Sadly, the reasonable people on the left are routinely drowned out -- see all the Bush assassination porn and Palin rape/sexual assault tirades.

That said, attacking the embassy of a foreign power is absolutely beyond the pale for any civilized people.

I'm curious as to where Libyan security was. I have difficulty imagining this being pulled off in the US or any Western nation before the host country's military or para-military descended on the embassy.

Here they managed to storm the embassy, kill the ambassador several Marines and proceed to parade his corpse down the street.

Remind me again why we helped these guys?

Because Zero knows better than everybody else (he has no problems telling you so, it seems) and wanted to prove what a great foreign policy TOTUS he is.

shiloh said...

Althouse continuing Drudge/Rasmussen fetish is duly noted.

And inane hyperbole from Drudge is shocking!

How dare he point up the failures of that train wreck we all call Zero!!

I never was entirely sure -why- we stepped in to Libya, Obama never really made a case. I think it was to stop the slaughter of innocents, something I can get behind. But he never really made the pitch.

---

As for when is dissent acceptable: When it is done in a respectful manner (like Romney did), it strengthens our nation by showing that you can disagree without fighting about it. Sadly, the reasonable people on the left are routinely drowned out -- see all the Bush assassination porn and Palin rape/sexual assault tirades.

I never was entirely sure -why- we stepped in to Libya, Obama never really made a case. I think it was to stop the slaughter of innocents, something I can get behind. But he never really made the pitch.

---

As for when is dissent acceptable: When it is done in a respectful manner (like Romney did), it strengthens our nation by showing that you can disagree without fighting about it. Sadly, the reasonable people on the left are routinely drowned out -- see all the Bush assassination porn and Palin rape/sexual assault tirades.

"The only national security reason for the US to be involved in the middle east is oil and with increasing national energy independence that reason is rapidly declining."

Utterly false. Even when (I don't think it is a question of "if") we are no longer using ME oil (we're not dependent on it now, we're just using it), we will still be using our military to guarantee access to ME oil by our allies in Europe and Asia (some of whom are heavily dependent on ME oil). These allies do not have the wherewithal to defend their economic interests themselves, so that devolves on us.

In the particular case of Japan, it is primarily because NO ONE in Asia wants to see Japan with that capability (the last time they had it, most of Asia suffered greatly). But hey, if you really want us out of the ME, then expect to see the likes of Kido Butai roaming the seas again. Picture al Qaeda with aircraft carriers (and probably nukes as well), though the Japanese of WWII were quite a bit more hardcore than al Qaeda.

Nathan, and liberals said the same thing about Bush. How does that partisan rhetoric help this situation?

It doesn't. It's called holding the President accountable to the same standards that were expected of the previous administration.

I would prefer national unity over the polarization we have today but I think those days are long past. The smoke had barely cleared from ground zero and talking heads were already speculating Bush was at worst, negligent in preventing the attack or complicity with the terrorists. Followed by years of liberals and leftists literally cheering on an American defeat in Iraq, its difficult for many to supress such rancor.

Balfegor said...We ought to immediately cease accepting any immigration or travel whatsoever from Egypt of Libya. The government of Egypt has not apologised promptly, so we should immediately cut off all foreign aid to Egypt (over a billion dollars a year, I think). The government of Libya has apologised, so if they are receiving any aid, we should continue it, but we should not permit any Libyans to enter the United States.

I agree with this, regarding the Egyptian government, with the caveat that they could still do the right thing, after some foot dragging.

We do need to make every effort to support the current Libyan government. North African is an important beach head in the struggle against the spread of fundamentalist Islam. Currently the Libyan government, as opposed to their opposition, seems to be making a serious effort to repair relations with the U.S. U.S. security is greatly advanced by this effort. It would be foolish to undermine this effort when things are obviously in such flux. To make this a partisan issue when there are such large stakes for U.S. security is the move of a total prick. Romney seems to have responded before he even knew that an ambassador had been killed which makes him look stupid as well as treasonous.

This being said, disengagement from the middle east should be our overall strategy.

The only people making this partisan are the ones focused more on the horse race of whether this should hurt Romney as opposed to dead men. Even the White House acknowledged and distanced itself from the Cairo embassy's statements at the time.

The brilliant bit on Drudge today was linking to Hillary laughing about the death of Gaddafi, while she jokes about how she should get credit for it. And she compares us to the ancient Roman empire! It's a brilliant combination of callousness, stupidity, ego, and fascism. And Hillary is supposed to be the A game in Obamaville. Huh.

I'm still not even sure we know what our goals were in Libya except "stop bad stuff from happening." Any failure from that falls squarely on Obama who, unlike Bush, could not be bothered to get the support of Congress.

Nathan, and liberals said the same thing about Bush. How does that partisan rhetoric help this situation?

Thinking people should be able to tell the difference between merely what is said, and what actually occurred.

Did President Bush skip PDBs more than half the time?

No.

Did President Bush issue an apology to the Muslim world after the 9/11 attacks?

No.

It isn't partisan to evaluate someone on the job they actually do.

It is partisan to try to seek false equivalency.

Does it make you feel your daughter is more safe or less safe that the President you support for re-election skips more than half the status updates on the security threat situation in Afghanistan and around the world?

@AReasonableman,To make this a partisan issue when there are such large stakes for U.S. security is the move of a total prick. Romney seems to have responded before he even knew that an ambassador had been killed which makes him look stupid as well as treasonous.

Thanks for self-identifying, you total prick.

It isn't partisan to note a failure by the President to make reasonable preparations against and respond to an attack on US soil.

Crimso said...Even when (I don't think it is a question of "if") we are no longer using ME oil (we're not dependent on it now, we're just using it), we will still be using our military to guarantee access to ME oil by our allies in Europe and Asia (some of whom are heavily dependent on ME oil). These allies do not have the wherewithal to defend their economic interests themselves, so that devolves on us.

This is nonsense. All these countries are responsible for their own national interests and can either act on their own or form effective alliances to advance those interests. China is doing perfectly well by letting the U.S. take all the heat in the middle east. Maybe its time to get a little smarter ourselves. The business of the U.S. should be advancing our own economic intersts not indulging in prolifigate wars.

AllieOop said... Nathan, and liberals said the same thing about Bush. How does that partisan rhetoric help this situation?

It's funny watching Allie's faux outrage at "partisanship". Romney's comment was dead on: we don't apologize for free speech, and we don't blame movie makers for mass murder and rioting. In fact it's Allie's media allies who are turning the matter into an outright partisan attack. Notice her compelte silence on that partisan attack.

Maybe she demonstrated her discomfort with partisanship when spreading the outright lie that the Romney's took a 77k tax credit for their horse. Or maybe it was when she claimed Republicans intend to institute The Handmaid's Tale. Or maybe she's just a partisan hack grasping at any tool available.

To make this a partisan issue when there are such large stakes for U.S. security is the move of a total prick. Romney seems to have responded before he even knew that an ambassador had been killed which makes him look stupid as well as treasonous.

Neither Romney nor even Obama (uncharacteristicaly) has tried to make this a partisan issue. Romney's criticism -- entirely correct -- was of the embassy staffs' mealy-mouthed protestations on twitter, which the President has since joined in condemning, and which I think has now been deleted.

The ones who have been trying to make it a partisan issue are the media, who are trying to make out that Republicans aren't condemning the attacks. Whether this astonishingly stupid ploy will work is doubtful -- it's sort of in line with Obama's pathetic attempts in 2008 to label McCain as "UnAmerican" (it mostly doesn't work on Republicans, just like "racist" doesn't work on Democrats). But they're sure trying.

Nathan,Cite please the part of your comments that keep repeating that Obama is skipping more than half of the status updates on the security threat n Afghanistan and Around the world.

Right here - courtesy of Marc Theissen in the Washington Post:

The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

I suspect the dreaded word "conservative" will have you dismiss this report, but I can only imagine the ear-popping shrieks from the left were this a story about a Republican president.

To make this a partisan issue when there are such large stakes for U.S. security is the move of a total prick. Romney seems to have responded before he even knew that an ambassador had been killed which makes him look stupid as well as treasonous.

Hey dumbass:

Romney was responding to the statements the US Embassy in Cairo made after the attack in Egypt.

MR. CARNEY: He gets it every day, okay? The President of the United States gets the presidential daily briefing every day. There is a document that he reads every day when he is not - well, he always reads it every day because he’s a voracious consumer of all of his briefing materials. And when he is physically here, most days he has a meeting in his office

Carney is saying that he -reads- the briefing, not that he attends them. Just that, when he is physically here, most days, he'll have the meeting. What was reported is accurate; he skips most of the briefings, taking the Spark Notes instead.

"All these countries are responsible for their own national interests and can either act on their own or form effective alliances to advance those interests."

And they have chosen the latter, as I clearly pointed out, so it isn't nonsense at all. It is how it is.

"Maybe its time to get a little smarter ourselves. The business of the U.S. should be advancing our own economic intersts not indulging in prolifigate wars."

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that it just might be in our economic interests to serve as the muscle for other countries. Complicated reasoning, I know, but think about it. Would we have been better off becoming Japan's protectors after WWII, or just sitting back and letting them rearm?

I happen to agree that we would be better off ignoring the ME, and I also largely agree with realpolitik. But I also can see how things are, and why they are the way they are. Those facts are incompatible with "let's just get out of the ME." And evidence (facts) trumps theory every time.

Essentially, Carney is answering the wrong question. He was asked how often Obama was at the briefing, Carney substituted an answer that would sound better: How often does Obama get the slides/handouts.

@AllieOop,Another one of those things that the right and left won't agree on, who is telling the truth?

Sure, anyone can say anything, how do we really know we aren't a butterfly dreaming we are a human, yes, yes, we covered all that in freshmen philosophy class.

Your standard of proof is exactly opposite for Dems and the GOP. Why is that?

You believe anything a Dem says about the GOP, without proof. But when given clear indications about Dem malfeasance, you refuse to believe it unless you are personally sitting in the room counting the number of time Obama is present.

Believe what you want to believe. But don't pretend that you hold your daughter's safety more important than the right to abort a baby in the 9th month.

There's a huge difference between being briefed and reading the notes. Trust me on that; it is true when attending a lecture and probably even more true when dealing with highly complicated and classified materials.

And if you read Carney with even a minimum of critical thinking, you notice that even when Obama is in the White House, he still skips meetings.

"And when he is physically here, most days he has a meeting in his office."

You reveal your priorities by what you give time to.

President Obama has done more campaign stops than his last several predecessors combined. He has golfed more than his last several predecessors combined. He attended fewer briefings on security threats in 4 years than any of his predecessors attended in 2.

All the hand-wringing from Obamabots about "Faux Noise" and "Drugetapositioning" and that horrible mean Rush. Then watch the two pressers, Obama v. Rom, and see the "objective" media in action. Pitiful. Remember that when the debates come around. The cheerleaders are refereeing the game. We would be better off with replacement refs.

Crimso said...I guess it hasn't occurred to you that it just might be in our economic interests to serve as the muscle for other countries. Complicated reasoning, I know, but think about it. Would we have been better off becoming Japan's protectors after WWII, or just sitting back and letting them rearm?

I happen to agree that we would be better off ignoring the ME, and I also largely agree with realpolitik. But I also can see how things are, and why they are the way they are. Those facts are incompatible with "let's just get out of the ME." And evidence (facts) trumps theory every time.

Two issues.

Not clear at this point whether we wouldn't be better off letting Japan rearm, given the rise of China. A little local conflict might slow China's economic rise giving us some breathing space to put our own industrial house in order.

Second, you undermine your own argument with your concession on the advisability of engaging any more than is absolutely necessary in the middle east. I largely supported the administration on Libya because for once the Europeans were doing the heavy lifting. It does them some good to get some practice cause their going to need it if the U.S. really gets serious about acting in its own best interests rather than engage in useless crusades.

Matthew, as long as he gets the information is all that is truly important. We still don't know the truth of the matter for certain.

No.

Your actions reveal your priorities.

If threats to national security was a priority for President Obama, he would make time for a briefing.

In a briefing, you ask for clarification on points. You are able to give orders for follow-up investigations to the very people that will be reporting to you. You send a message to the people doing the work that you consider their efforts possible.

But if you just take the information, you are passive. No leadership. You send a message to the people doing the work that it isn't important. You may misunderstand an emphasis. You can't get the deeper explanation of a graphic.

Only about 40% of communication is in the words actually said. The rest is in tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, etc.

By foregoing the briefings, President Obama was getting only about 40% of the information.

And sending a message to his entire administration about the relative lack of importance attached to threats to national security.

There's a huge difference between being briefed and reading the notes. Trust me on that; it is true when attending a lecture and probably even more true when dealing with highly complicated and classified materials.

Key difference is you can't ask follow-up questions of your briefing notes. You have to go back and request a memo or try to schedule a meeting or something, making it much less likely that that additional communication ever takes place.

Nathan, I've stated several times on this blog that IMO abortion should be limited to the first trimester. Please don't lie about what I've said, makes you lose credibility.

AllieOop,Words are only words. Actions speak louder than words.

You support President Obama, who is for killing babies after they are born if the mother intended to abort.

You believed every spurious accusation about the so-called "GOP War on Women", including ignoring actual facts about contraception policy, abortion policy, and what happens if abortion is overturned by the Supreme Court.

And you have indicated that you support the Democrats over the Republicans because of these so-called women's issues.

There is no accusation against the GOP's so-called War on Women that you won't believe. There is also no criticism of Obama that you will accept. You doubt/spin every single one.

Your priorities are revealed by what you find credible.

So you personally being for abortion only in the first trimester is immaterial: you are giving political power to a group that insists on far, far more than that.

That's the standard you applied to Akin and GOP regarding rape/abortion, so you shouldn't balk at that standard being applied to you now.

Too bad the last diplomat killed was under Carter, so even your attempt at misdirection kinda failed.

Hey Matthew-Oh, I thought you wrote something about "other Americans." Was I wrong? Let's take a quick look at what you wrote:

"the Executive Branch failed to protect our diplomat and other Americans"

So it looks like you hold the Executive Branch responsible for attacks that lead to the deaths of Americans.

Now I know what you're thinking. Bush had absolutely no responsibility for American lives lost on 9/11 because he had been on vacation for almost the entire summer and hadn't been paying attention to things going on in the world. So if laziness and ignorance are good excuses, then Bush is completely excused.

Glad to see you are consistent Matthew. Consistently hypocritical, that is.

This is the problem with having no principles. Romney now stands fully exposed as a soulless ghoul willing to say or do anything to advance his own career. There is a reason all the other republican candidates ended up hating this piece of shit.

"Not clear at this point whether we wouldn't be better off letting Japan rearm"

I was referring to letting them rearm immediately after the war. You do know one of the major reasons for their attack on Pearl Harbor was access to oil? They were certainly of a mind then not just to guarantee access to oil supplies, but to outright seize them.

I'd be happy to see them remilitarize, and to hand them nukes to boot. Both NK and PRC would shit their pants.

"Second, you undermine your own argument with your concession on the advisability of engaging any more than is absolutely necessary in the middle east."

No, I was quite consistent. My argument was that regardless of OUR use of ME oil, our presence in the ME would still be absolutely necessary. That is compatible with it also being undesirable. "It's like holding a tiger by the ears. You don't like it, but you don't dare let go."

Journ-O-listers coordinated a gotcha question for Romney, and got caught on open mic ('cause they're so brillz) doing it.therightscoop.com

Because in the wake of a planned attack on American embassies, the intentional killing of Americans including a U.S. ambassador (apparently the first such murder in 33 years), all on Obama's failed foreign policy watch, the burning important question of the day is whether Mitt Romney regrets his statement or his tone. Fuck.

Crimso said...My argument was that regardless of OUR use of ME oil, our presence in the ME would still be absolutely necessary. That is compatible with it also being undesirable. "It's like holding a tiger by the ears. You don't like it, but you don't dare let go."

I don't buy this at all. If this was really the case then the first thing the U.S. should do is let go of Israel. It's clear that our alliance with Israel hurts us in the middle east and if it is really in our rational best interest to be involved to such an extent in the region then we should act rationally. To the extent that Israel is an ally it is not the kind of ally that is of much use to us. Anglophone countries such as Britain, Canada and Australia have proven to be reliable allies. These countries help us advance our interests and they have repeatedly helped us fight our wars. Israel really doesn't fall into the same category. On the otherhand if we continue to be involved in the middle east for domestic political reasons we need to start to ask when does the cost of this involvement become to large to bear, given our weakened economy.